User talk:Antidotto

Just Journalism
Hello Antidotto, Thanks for your note. We can reinstate your summary of JJ if you can provide some kind of authoritative reference for the information, e.g, a blog, article, YouTube video, newspaper or journal item, etc. I looked at their web page myself and was unable to detect the description you provided. Many groups claim to be "independent," "non-partisan," etc. on their Web sites, of course, but if you can find a published opinion somewhere that they are other than that (preferably with some substantiation), that's the type of reference we are looking for. If their Web site is noticeably partisan, also, we can accept that as a reference. I just wasn't clear about that by visiting their home page.

Anne Landman, SourceWatch/TobaccoWiki editor

National Review and Jonah Golderg
Sorry, as usual, i was obtuse. I wasn't questioning your edit. I was commenting on the way J.Cole literally tore Jonah Golberg a new rear-end, and he just came back for another spanking! Proving my sarcasm, that the reason Republicans do not understand the outrage over the sodomisation of POWs is that they consider it to be an act of compassionate conservatism.

This bit of back and forth between Golberg and Cole recently is what caused my awareness of Cole, and I was very impresed. I would not wish to get into an argument with him. I believe he still has a standing offer with Goldberg for a televised debate on the mideast.

I assumed. you'd know of Jonah Goldberg. A real little ball of hate. Fixture at National Review, and a main reason for their falling from grace in my eyes. NR used to be rational, and even in disagreement offered positions that seemed thoughtful. They are one step above Horrowitz's rag, FrontPage, in my mind now.

Anyway:
 * Jonah Goldber's NR bio
 * Jonah Goldberg's rationale for firing Coulter this one is hysterical.  Coulter had called him "girlie boy", and his must remain intellectual attitude in response was completely wimpy  It is better to ignore a childish insult, than to respond to it like that.i

And how about this bit of recent hate offered up by the NR?


 * As the fate of Terri Schiavo was decided and then carried out, the enigma of Jewish liberalism came again to the fore. What accounts for Jews whose idea of dying "with dignity" included this incapacitated Florida woman being dehydrated to a state of living mummification like the ghoulish images of Nazi death-camp survivors?"


 * David Klinghoffer, "Liberal Jews & Terri Schiavo - A Purim political lesson", National Review - March 29, 2005

It's straight out of Michael Savage/Weiner's pagebook of right-wing jew attacking liberal jew with death camp insults. Trashy, beyond belief. This is what has happened to National Review. Is there not one real intellectual left on the right?

btw, while looking for the url for Goldberg's bio on NR, i scraped their whole contributor list, soon to reformatted and placed on my page here, if you're interested.

--Hugh Manatee 15:15, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Richard Poe
--- Re Richard Poe: not much of an article. I have reduced it to a stub and relocated the rest of the unreferenced material to the talk page pending a rewrite. Feel free to have a crack at it.--Bob Burton 20:56, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)

You can have your opinion and I have mine. I can tell you from my many, many years of experience in dealing with the military, he is on point. He kept mum when he was expected to spout the military party line, but has refused to do so -- at great peril of courts martial -- since returning from Iraq. That takes a LOT O' B-LLS!

Also, note his response to one challenge about his motives:

"'They used me — but I used them. I wasn’t going to give up that opportunity. It was a chance for an ordinary guy to speak on that national stage.'"

Opinions expressed by Fox News and their mouthpieces do not rank very highly with me, for one. Just look at the affiliations of those speaking out against him and the mission of his organization, which also includes GOPUSA and Cybercast News Service, and we know to whom they are aligned.

I do not see one single incident where he is against the war ... he expresses over and over that he is against how the Bushies are treating OUR soldiers ... before, during and after deployment and post-return. Artificial Intelligence 09:42, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

but that is part of the problem
Stan goff's point is that just talking for better treatment of US soldiers doesnt amount to an "anti-war" stance. Does RieckHoff say anything about the crimes committed in Iraq?? Why would R* oppose a anti-war demo in Fayetville... Why wouldnt he join the other veteran orgs against the war?? Hmmm... Kind rgds Antidotto

Would you PLEASE look at the source of the quote and source upon which Goff bases his article? It's Gannon/Guckert/Talon/GOPUSA all over again! As far as I'm concerned, Goff got suckered in here ... and apparently he's not the only one!

Besides, do you really expect this guy to fight all the battles? He's picked one issue .. the soldier in the field and what is expected of him and how he is being treated. Nobody else is really expressing that concern so strongly, now are they?

A Trojan Jackass for the Anti-War Movement By STAN GOFF

Fayetteville, North Carolina

"To mark the second anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq on March 19, various anti-war groups are planning to protest in Fayetteville, N.C., the home of Fort Bragg. It's not the protest, but the location that has some people upset.

"An organization representing veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan said demonstrators are 'wrong and insensitive' to take their complaints to Fort Bragg, because it blames the warriors for the war.

"'The decision makers are not at Fort Bragg, they are in Washington. Rallying against the war by marching at Fort Bragg is like protesting the cows if you don't like McDonalds,' said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth."

-from "Anti-War Groups Protesting US Troops Instead of Decision-Makers," by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com, March 17, 2005.

Artificial Intelligence 09:59, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Afterthought ... it occurs to me that it is OTHERS who are labeling Rieckerhoff as "antiwar" ... he NEVER calls himself that. He is anti policy, pro soldier ... not antiwar. Artificial Intelligence 10:05, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

hmmm...
You are right, need to look closer at this... keep up good work. Antidotto

As a concession, if perhaps it ends up only being a temporary one -- which I highly doubt will happen -- please remove the unsupported "fake" category label. Thanks .. Artificial Intelligence 10:12, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I think we can add Tony Snow, Fox mouthpiece to list. I will take a closer look to see what else is out there, as well as source for the GOPUSA item. Artificial Intelligence 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Always a wise thing to consider the source. Went to Stan Goff's weblog Feral Scholar and here's his bio (the links to his weblog home page are a bit of a clue, as well):

My first career was in the Army. My second career is writing. I am married, with four children - one biological. I am a grandfather.

The central preoccupation in my life outside of family is politics.

My politics is heavily influenced by Marxism, feminism, ecology, and revolutionary Black nationalism, and I am opposed to dogma in any of these.

I am also strongly influenced by my military experience, where I learned a deep distrust of abstractions and a keen appreciation for the fact that social power is acted out on living human bodies.

I have written three books, two published and the last in draft - still editing as I begin this blog.

First book; “Hideous Dream - A Soldier’s Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti,” a personal account of the 1994 US intervention.

Second book; “Full Spectrum Disorder - The Military the New American Century,” a collection of sketches about the dangers associated with the decline of the American empire, and the error of ‘moral imperialism.’

Third book; “Sex & War,” about gender in the imperial military.

I am not employed in the conventional sense, so I chase a few speaking gigs for modest honoraria in order to do my real work, which is organizing with particular emphasis on turning military communities against the war, and on Haiti.

I also write the infrequent “Military Matters” column on Freedom Road’s web site.

What more can I say? Artificial Intelligence 10:47, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

We can add this article to the list, sort of ... "Some thoughts on Paul Rieckhoff," as the author states, for one thing, "Rieckhoff claims that he was restrained by his active status as to what he could and could not say - but I seriously doubt that anyone was pushing the young Lieutenant to give a pep rally speech to visiting CBS reporters."

Well, the way that it works is that those allowed to speak to such media as 60 Minutes are carefully hand-selected by HQ Public Affairs. If he were not expected to spout military party line, he would not have been allowed to speak. Those PR moments are carefully orchestrated, so this is an unfair assessment.

The blogger "Wind Rider" also hints that Rieckhoff was fomenting mutiny in the ranks while in Iraq. Well, this guy must never have been in the military, as "discontent" among the ranks is everyday activity. Mutiny is pretty much something quite different. Artificial Intelligence 10:58, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT) Still looking

Re: So, he sounds fake to you? What aspect of his politics (which you highlighted) do you find troublesome. Acknowledging and making influences is rather nice -- most folks just lie about it or claim that there are no influences...

I have read most of Goff's articles on CP, and find them very useful, and in my opinion he is right on the mark about OT and EPIC... Kind rgds Antidotto

I did not indicate that I thought he was fake. I just think that he is off-base re Rieckhoff. I spent some time cruising and looking at his articles. He has his own perspective on what the activism against the war in Iraq should be. Lacking any proof whatsoever, he slams Operation Truth and its chosen mission as a Democrat shill (and worse).

What troubles me the most about the "Jackass" article is this:

1. "a plant for the Democratic Party, using his outfit's non-profit status to give him plausible deniability. The NGO in question is Operation Truth, which has somehow managed to pass itself off as an antiwar group every since its inception while explicitly not taking a position against the war."
 * This is branding without support. As far as I can tell, neither Rieckhoff or OT in any way promote themselves as antiwar or an antiwar group. They call themselves an advocacy group .. period.

2. "I am speaking for myself." .. Goff states three times within two paragraphs that he is speaking for himself. I believe Shakespeare had a turn on that one.

3. I find his "you're with me or you're against me", "my way or the highway" attitude offensive and unnecessary. Think that we've heard that one before somewhere.


 * In most regards, I agree with his CP articles, too. I just think that there is more going on here than meets the eye ... or, as my often-correct dad used to say, the "green eye."

I also think that Goff misses a very important point that is not lost on Rieckhoff .. the troops are there, they need real support and all the protesting to bring them home now will not change the reality that they are not only there -- lacking in numbers, material, and support to complete the mission -- but also will be there for some time whether we think they should be or not. They will not be brought home NOW, so, in the meantime, whether one agrees with the mission or not, they need a lot ... which Rieckhoff recognizes and apparently Special-Ops-lost-in-a-fog Goff does not.


 * Also can't figure out how this guy enlisted in 1970 and "retired" in 1996. Raises some questions, it does, since, unless for medical or other exceptions, one retires after 20 years, not 16.

Sorry, whether the troops should come home now or not, a whole lot of damage has been done, the vets do and will have incredible physical, psychological, and emotional challenges, and somebody has to speak up and campaign for that. Rieckhoff is doing that. Questioning his motives is unnecessary and slamming him for doing it is WRONG. Artificial Intelligence 13:03, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Good morning (here) ... Stan Goff is all yours. I only started the stub to identify him .... AND then my server went down and was out until about an hour ago. So, have a party!

I have to add, after going to the Operation Truth article, that it would appear that the only purpose of the article being there to begin with is to showcase Goff's slam on both it and Paul Rieckhoff, which now hits one between the eyes. Nowhere else in my whole day yesterday of searching for info, comments by, for or against Rieckhoff did I find such a scathing assessment.

As I wrote yesterday, it appears to me that there is a whole lot more going on here .... a battle of the "anti-war" versus the "pro-soldier" factions on the issue of the war in Iraq -- politics as usual -- an "anti-war activist" version of a smear campaign. Sort of "my cause is better than your cause because I said so."

The Operation Truth article does NOT represent two or more sides to an assessment of the organization, its administration, its supporters, and its advisers, other than the same kind of self-description we find for any other organization and that presented by Goff.

I will leave the OT article alone until or unless you let me know that you are no longer going to work on it. It needs some balance ... i.e., FAIR treatment. OT has actually done something FOR veterans and soldiers, has been proactive and involved with members of Congress, etc. and has not just demanded that we "bring them home!"

Another issue that I came across numerous times is that people like Goff, who may well have been in Vietnam or other conflicts, were not in this one, were not there, will not be going there, and have no first-hand knowledge like that of the military who are, have and will be there.

Rieckhoff speaks from that knowledge. Goff appears sincere in his cause ... and he does like his causes, lots of them, most of which he is not a part of: Black nationalism, feminism, etc. Rieckhoff has only one mission ... help his fellow soldiers. The two are far apart on more than the technicalities of how and what to protest.

As I said, no other such scathing assessment. That does not mean no negative opinions are expressed. Rieckhoff is accused by the right of being the tool of the left, a Democrat stooge, etc., but that's no different of the sort of thing we hear all the time from one side attacking the other. It's part of the game, which came from folks like GOPUSA, Matt Drudge, etc. I just consider the source in those instances.

The attack by Goff has something much, much different underneath.

Artificial Intelligence 06:29, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Part Deux: I just came across this article (fortunately when the server goes down, where I left off is still there!) which was posted right after Rieckhoff's May 1, 2004, speech. My take exactly .. and apparently that of a whole of folks. You don't read such about Goff: Artificial Intelligence 06:38, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

"Soldier for Truth", purebs.blogspot.com:

"Our troops are still waiting for more body armor. They are still waiting for better equipment. They are still waiting for a policy that brings in the rest of the world and relieves their burden. Our troops are still waiting for help."

"I don't expect our leaders to be free of mistakes, I expect our leaders to own up to them."

In a refreshing break with tradition, the Weekly Democratic Radio Address was given by a veteran of The Iraq war redux. I guess that makes two breaks with tradition. It's the first time I've linked to Fox News *shiver*

Paul Rieckhoff, who gave the address, tells a different story from that of the president. Rieckhoff lays it out in easy to follow terms. That's what I like about veterans. Unless they're way up in the food chain, they aren't likely to bs you. Bs gets them killed.

A worthy read. I know it's Faux News, but it's an important message.

- Antodotto -- re mullahs/Cole I had a quick look around and couldnlt see anything obvious. What about hang it as a case study off the article on Cole himself (is Juan Cole/XXXXXXXX That way its giving credit where its due and if somewhere else becomes obvious we can move it.--Bob Burton 06:43, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

- Hi Antidotto, Sorry for the delay in responding to you re the HRW origins and the citation to Kisten Sellers book. (been on the road and battling a blizzard of email etc) It would be great if you could send me the relevant pages - you have my email - as I'd like to finish tidying that page up before the end of the year. cheers --Bob Burton 22:51, 12 December 2006 (EST)

on EPIC
Hi Antidotto - I have given you two independent ways to verify I am not Johann Hari, is there anything else I can do to prove it?

If there's anythign wrong with the entry I have proposed by all means amend it, but I don't think it's reasonable to revert it on the absis of claiming I'm somebody I've proved I'm not! - DaveR

Dear Antidotto,

Regarding the Education for Peace in Iraq Center article - most of my changes were to add information, including quotes from EPIC's website and press release. All SourceWatch articles should include information from numerous sources, including the person / organization in question, as outlined here.

I also did remove a some of what I deemed irrelevant information -- including Stan Goff's claim that his critique of EPIC might be dismissed as "red-baiting." I just don't see how that belongs in an article on EPIC, especially as I have not found any mention of EPIC or others dismissing Goff because of his association with the Socialist Worker. Of course, Goff's critique of EPIC is relevant, and I kept that in the article.

To expand upon my explanation on the EPIC article's talk page, I edited the article because I felt it was presenting one side of one critique of an organization -- and that based on one person's writing and unsupported claims made about a partial characterization of EPIC's "Suggested Reading" list.

As you know, the beauty of SourceWatch is that you can continue to add to or edit the article if you disagree. However, in order to make SourceWatch a website worth reading, all contributors are asked to follow basic guidelines, including fairness and respect for other contributors.

--Diane Farsetta

Artur Davis
Hi Antidotto,

I made some changes to your edits on Rep. Artur Davis' page to ensure that the source of stated views was clear. I also replaced the photo with a direct link to the photo. If you would like to discuss the changes I made, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Thanks. -Elliott Fullmer, Associate Managing Editor

Hi Antidotto,

I returned to the Artur Davis page and did some work. I reinserted the photo on the right-hand side of the page and modified the caption a bit (this way it does not disrupt the flow of the text and readers can click it if they wish to view a larger version).

I also reinserted the text you removed regarding the Electronic Intifada. If you are noting an assertion that one is making, it is important that the background of the source is transparent.

I reinserted the information regarding StealthPAC, but changed the wording a bit. If you could find and add a linked source to this content, as well as to the content regarding Davis' speech at AIPAC, that would be very helpful.

I am happy to work with you in improving the page and appreciate all of the work you have done. -Elliott

Antidotto-

I made substantial revisions to the Artur Davis article. I think you'll be happy with most of them (I expanded your points about AIPAC funding), but did reinsert the context on the Ben White quote. The proper place to discuss this is on the Talk:Artur Davis page, so if you want to discuss/argue/edit this issue further, let's continue the conversation there. Best, Conor --Conor Kenny 12:16, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Hari page
My apologies, I keep meaning to get back to it but a blizzard of other things keeps swamping me. It look like next week will be relatively quiet so I promise I'll work my way through it then and lift the protect when I am done. --Bob Burton 06:19, 23 June 2007 (EDT)


 * You may want to save a copy of this page for your files. Couldn't find it on the UPI site and old link dead - but it is in the Internet Archive - http://web.archive.org/web/20050113165227/http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

--Bob Burton 06:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Updates/format
Thanks for updating the David Project. Artificial Intelligence 09:48, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

External articles should be listed in chronological order, not alpha order. Lists should be listed in alpha order.

The new format for the bottom of the page is as follows: